Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 23, Issue 11, pp 3541–3547 | Cite as

Local Control Modality and Outcome for Ewing Sarcoma of the Femur: A Report From the Children’s Oncology Group

  • Najat C. Daw
  • Nadia N. Laack
  • Elizabeth J. McIlvaine
  • Mark Krailo
  • Richard B. Womer
  • Linda Granowetter
  • Holcombe E. Grier
  • Neyssa M. Marina
  • Mark L. Bernstein
  • Mark C. Gebhardt
  • Karen J. Marcus
  • Shailesh M. Advani
  • John H. Healey
  • George D. Letson
  • Richard G. Gorlick
  • R. Lor Randall
Bone and Soft Tissue Sarcomas

Abstract

Background

The choice of a local control (LC) modality for Ewing sarcoma (EWS) of the femur is controversial. This study aimed to determine the effect of LC modality on tumor LC and patient outcomes.

Methods

The study reviewed the treatment and outcomes for 115 patients who had EWS of the femur treated with similar chemotherapy in three cooperative group trials. Patient outcomes were analyzed according to the LC modality using the log-rank test and the cumulative incidence of local or distant failure using competing risks regression.

Results

The median age of the patients was 13 years. The most common tumor location was the proximal femur followed by the mid femur. For 55 patients with available data, the tumor was larger than 8 cm in 29 patients and 8 cm or smaller in 26 patients. For 84 patients (73 %), surgery only was performed, whereas 17 patients (15 %) had surgery plus radiation, and 14 patients (12 %) had radiation only. The 5-year event-free survival (EFS) rate was 65 % (95 % confidence interval [CI], 55–73 %), and the 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was 70 % (95 % CI, 61–78 %). Patient outcomes did not differ significantly according to tumor location within the femur (proximal, mid or distal) or tumor size (<8 vs ≥8 cm). The findings showed no statistically significant differences in EFS, OS, cumulative incidence of local failure, or cumulative incidence of distant failure according to LC modality (surgery, surgery plus radiation, or radiation).

Conclusions

The LC modality did not significantly affect disease outcome for EWS of the femur. Further study of treatment complications and functional outcome may help to define the optimal LC modality.

Keywords

Overall Survival Local Control Cumulative Incidence Local Failure Ewing Sarcoma 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by National Institute of Health/National Cancer Institute grant 1K23CA154530 and by U10CA180886 (NCTN Operations Center Grant) and U10CA180899 (NCTN Statistics & Data Center Grant), as well as by U10CA98543 (Chair’s Grant) and U10CA98413 (Statistics & Data Center Grant) grants from the National Cancer Institute. Additional support for research was provided by a grant from the WWWW (QuadW) Foundation, Inc. (www.QuadW.org).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Grier HE, Krailo MD, Tarbell NJ, et al. Addition of ifosfamide and etoposide to standard chemotherapy for Ewing’s sarcoma and primitive neuroectodermal tumor of bone. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:694–701.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Granowetter L, Womer R, Devidas M, et al. Dose-intensified compared with standard chemotherapy for nonmetastatic Ewing sarcoma family of tumors: a Children’s Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:2536–41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Womer RB, West DC, Krailo MD, et al. Randomized controlled trial of interval-compressed chemotherapy for the treatment of localized Ewing sarcoma: a report from the Children’s Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:4148–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    DuBois SG, Krailo MD, Gebhardt MC, et al. Comparative evaluation of local control strategies in localized Ewing sarcoma of bone: a report from the Children’s Oncology Group. Cancer. 2015;121:467–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yock TI, Krailo M, Fryer CJ, et al. Local control in pelvic Ewing sarcoma: analysis from INT-0091—a report from the Children’s Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3838–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Paulussen M, Ahrens S, Dunst J, et al. Localized Ewing tumor of bone: final results of the cooperative Ewing’s Sarcoma Study CESS 86. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:1818–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Koch JC. The laws of bone architecture. Am J Anat. 1917;21:177–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fielding JW, Cochran GV, Zickel RE. Biomechanical characteristics and surgical management of subtrochanteric fractures. Orthop Clin North Am. 1974;5:629–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Terek RM, Brien EW, Marcove RC, Meyers PA, Lane JM, Healey JH. Treatment of femoral Ewing’s sarcoma. Cancer. 1996;78:70–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bacci G, Ferrari S, Longhi A, et al. Local and systemic control in Ewing’s sarcoma of the femur treated with chemotherapy, and locally by radiotherapy and/or surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003;85:107–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ozaki T, Hillmann A, Hoffmann C, et al. Ewing’s sarcoma of the femur: prognosis in 69 patients treated by the CESS group. Acta Orthop Scand. 1997;68:20–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc. 1958;53:457–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kalbfleisch JD, Prentice RL (2001) The Statistical Analysis of Failure Time Data. vol 360. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gray RJ. A class of K-sample tests for comparing the cumulative incidence of a competing risk. Ann Stat. 1988;16:1141–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fine JP, Gray RJ. A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc. 1999;94:496–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Arai Y, Kun LE, Brooks MT, et al. Ewing’s sarcoma: local tumor control and patterns of failure following limited-volume radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991;21:1501–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bacci G, Ferrari S, Bertoni F, et al. Prognostic factors in nonmetastatic Ewing’s sarcoma of bone treated with adjuvant chemotherapy: analysis of 359 patients at the Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:4–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cotterill SJ, Ahrens S, Paulussen M, et al. Prognostic factors in Ewing’s tumor of bone: analysis of 975 patients from the European Intergroup Cooperative Ewing’s Sarcoma Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:3108–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rodriguez-Galindo C, Liu T, Krasin MJ, et al. Analysis of prognostic factors in ewing sarcoma family of tumors: review of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital studies. Cancer. 2007;110:375–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Springfield DS, Pagliarulo C. Fractures of long bones previously treated for Ewing’s sarcoma. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985;67:477–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Damron TA, Sim FH, O’Connor MI, Pritchard DJ, Smithson WA (1996) Ewing’s sarcoma of the proximal femur. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 322: 232–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Strong LC, Herson J, Osborne BM, Sutow WW. Risk of radiation-related subsequent malignant tumors in survivors of Ewing’s sarcoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1979;62:1401–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kuttesch JF Jr, Wexler LH, Marcus RB, et al. Second malignancies after Ewing’s sarcoma: radiation dose-dependency of secondary sarcomas. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:2818–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stish BJ, Ahmed SK, Rose PS, Arndt CA, Laack NN. Patient-reported functional and quality-of-life outcomes in a large cohort of long-term survivors of Ewing Sarcoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2015;62:2189–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Najat C. Daw
    • 1
  • Nadia N. Laack
    • 2
  • Elizabeth J. McIlvaine
    • 3
  • Mark Krailo
    • 3
  • Richard B. Womer
    • 4
  • Linda Granowetter
    • 5
  • Holcombe E. Grier
    • 6
  • Neyssa M. Marina
    • 7
  • Mark L. Bernstein
    • 8
  • Mark C. Gebhardt
    • 9
  • Karen J. Marcus
    • 10
  • Shailesh M. Advani
    • 1
  • John H. Healey
    • 11
  • George D. Letson
    • 12
  • Richard G. Gorlick
    • 13
  • R. Lor Randall
    • 14
  1. 1.Division of PediatricsUT MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Radiation OncologyMayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  3. 3.Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of MedicineUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  4. 4.Department of PediatricsUniversity of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine and Children’s Hospital of PhiladelphiaPhiladelphiaUSA
  5. 5.Department of PediatricsNew York University (NYU) School of Medicine and NYU Langone Medical CenterNew YorkUSA
  6. 6.Department of PediatricsChildren’s Hospital Boston/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  7. 7.Department of PediatricsStanford University School of Medicine and Lucile Packard Children’s HospitalPalo AltoUSA
  8. 8.Division of Pediatric Hematology/OncologyIWK Health CenterHalifaxCanada
  9. 9.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryChildren’s Hospital Boston/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  10. 10.Department of Radiation OncologyChildren’s Hospital Boston/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  11. 11.Department of SurgeryMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  12. 12.Department of Surgery, All Children’s HospitalH. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research InstituteTampaUSA
  13. 13.Section of Pediatric Hematology/OncologyMontefiore Medical Center–Moses CampusBronxUSA
  14. 14.Department of Orthopaedics, Huntsman Cancer InstituteUniversity of Utah School of MedicineSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations